Reliability of the Spinal Cord Assessment Tool for Spastic Reflexes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability of the Spinal Cord Assessment Tool for Spastic Reflexes (SCATS). DESIGN: Observational reliability study of the SCATS. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation unit at an education and research hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects (N=47) between the ages of 18 and 88 years with spinal cord injury (SCI) and with American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grades from A to D with spasticity, who were at least 6 months postinjury. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interrater and test-retest reliability of the SCATS. RESULTS: The SCATS had substantial to almost perfect interrater agreement (κ=.669-1.000) between the 2 physiatrists. Test-retest agreement of the SCATS was also substantial to almost perfect (κ=.614-1.000) as well. There was a significant correlation between the SCATS clonus scores and the Modified Ashworth scores of the hip, knee, and ankle. No correlation was found between SCATS extensor spasm scores and Modified Ashworth scores. The SCATS flexor spasm scores were only correlated significantly with the ankle plantar flexor Modified Ashworth scores (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The SCATS is a reliable tool for assessing spasm activity and spastic hypertonia in patients with SCI.

Spinal cord stimulators: typical positioning and postsurgical complications.

OBJECTIVE: Implantation of a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) is one option for pain control in individuals with chronic lumbosacral radicular or axial lumbar pain. The expected positioning of SCSs based on the location of pain, the types of electrodes (percutaneous vs surgical paddle), and the types of electrode arrays and the potential complications have not been described to date in the radiology literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 5-year retrospective review of the radiology information system at our institution revealed 24 patients with images of 36 SCSs. Those images were reviewed to identify the location and type of electrodes as well as the location of the lead within the spinal canal. Not all implantable pulse generators were within the radiologic field of view. Complications identified by reviewing medical records were correlated with imaging findings. RESULTS: Fourteen different types of electrodes were identified. Most were placed in the thoracic spine only, but six thoracolumbar and two cervical spine electrodes were also present. We measured the position of the electrodes within the spinal canal on 26 CT studies of the 24 patients. On 22 of 26 CT studies, the electrodes were placed in the epidural space in the posterior one third of the spinal canal. Complications included misplaced, retained, and broken leads; puncture of the thecal sac; infection; and hematoma. CONCLUSION: Radiologists should be familiar with the different types of electrodes and typical spinal locations of electrodes, leads, and implantable pulse generators. Improper placement of electrodes may lead to ineffective pain relief or to other complications.